Is Revolution The Only Viable Solution?

[Rippounet]

34 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I love it how you assume that people who can't pass an IQ test or psych evaluation are on the right.

Eeeeer, no, I believe you're the one assuming that. Throughout the thread you seemed to have been defending the idea that an IQ test or psych evaluation would be a safeguard against what you call "right-wing authoritarianism."

Not only do I not make such an assumption, but I'm tempted to say that requiring an IQ test and/or psych evaluation is pretty much right-wing authoritarianism.

[Hereward]

Leaving aside that it's a horrible idea in principle, if enacted, all that would happen would be that instead of fighting for the power to gerrymander  districts, you'd have a struggle for the power to write the voting test.

[baxus]

2 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

FYI, the very framework of the US Constitution is based on rights for rich white men.  If you haven't noted the reference in it to "other persons," or how long it was before women could vote.  Use democratic principles when electoral districts have been heavily Gerrymandered to greatly favor Republicans?  Like that's going to work.  Voter turnout?  Fanatics are highly motivated.  Not so much, the others.  And the left has no fanatics at the moment.

The idea that we must constrain ourselves to working within a system that has created this problem, is like refusing treatment for cancer, because we want it to go into remission.

If you don't like the Constitution or your electoral system, there is a legal way of changing those. If there's not enough support for those changes, then it shouldn't be changed in the first place. It actually is that simple.

Is one of your top objections to the current state of political affairs in your country that "the left has no fanatics at the moment"? And another that non-fanatics are not motivated to vote? Seriously?

And your proposed solution to these problems is to label voters of opposing fraction as fanatics and sociopaths and tinfoil hat wearers and deny them the right to vote instead of trying to motivate those "non-fanatics" to vote and offset the "fanatics". I'd actually LOVE to hear what makes you so certain that all those "non-fanatics" (or even a significant majority of them) would swing your way in the elections in the first place.

One more thing, comparing roughly half of your politically active compatriots to cancer is in very poor taste and, to be perfectly honest, it makes you seem butt-hurt for having a moron president more than anything else.

Democratic system and process is not there to ensure your government is to your liking. It is there to ensure that everyone has a chance to have their say on who should run the country. I hate my current government at least as much as you hate yours, but they have been elected in democratic elections and all I can do is criticize their actions when I don't agree with them. Calling for psych evaluations and IQ testing of their voters is crossing the line. Not to mention it wreaks of Nazism. What would be next? Allowing only those who pass those tests to have children?

[Robin Of House Hill]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Robin,

Again, you are assuming such a test can be created that is a truly "objective" measure of intelligence.  Additionally, a "test" that determines who may and may not vote, regardless of how objective it is, is going to piss people off.  If the people become radicalized in large numbers from any political point of view... bad things happen.  

Democracy is not a guarantor of anything.  It is simply the best of the worst in methods for selecting a government.  Government is a necessary evil.  

So we are faced with a choice of sitting back and allowing people to be harmed, or acting to end the reign of those doing the harm.  What happens when there is no way to stop the harm and still abide by democratic principles?

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Eeeeer, no, I believe you're the one assuming that. Throughout the thread you seemed to have been defending the idea that an IQ test or psych evaluation would be a safeguard against what you call "right-wing authoritarianism."

Not only do I not make such an assumption, but I'm tempted to say that requiring an IQ test and/or psych evaluation is pretty much right-wing authoritarianism.

Since the test would be applied to all, left, right, and center, how is it a call for restrictions on the right, as you indicated below.

50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Isn't it deliciously ironic to call for restrictions on the right to vote in the name of liberalism, when this is exactly what liberalism stands against? Or am I missing something here?

You know, I had something to say, but the hell with it.  I have my passport and the means to escape if I need to. 

[mcbigski]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

  Do you think they are going to react by shrugging their shoulders and grumbling that they should have studied harder when they were in school, or, might their response to being stripped of the right to vote be somewhat less pleasant?  If the latter how do you propose to deal with that issue?

Just ask yourself "what would Che Guevara do?"  Or Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

Because that's where Robin seems to be heading.  Revolution is the only answer and it's too important for half measures!!!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

So we are faced with a choice of sitting back and allowing people to be harmed, or acting to end the reign of those doing the harm.  What happens when there is no way to stop the harm and still abide by democratic principles?

How many people are going to be harmed by a violent revolution? It's kinda hard to find the moral high ground here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Robin,

As Baxus and Rippounuet stated "Democracy" isn't a guarantee that everything will always be sunshine and lollipops.  It is simply the idea that that most people get a voice in what happens.  Hell, Hamas was voted in by the Palestinians democratically.  If you want guarantees about what the government will or will not do as to a group of people... those don't exist.  We can, and have, attempted to limit where government can go with its power.  As we have seen even with explicit limits written into a founding document there is no way to fully control what government will and will not do. 

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Since the test would be applied to all, left, right, and center, how is it a call for restrictions on the right, as you indicated below.

That's my reading of your words.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Robin,

What's really bad about this idea is that you could probably, with some success, play on people's indifference to get people with whom you disagree politically to stay out of the polling booth but as soon as you say "X can't vote if they don't meet Y standard" I guarantee they will go crazy because you are saying the "can't" vote.  

[Robin Of House Hill]

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

That's my reading of your words.

Then there is no further point in communication.  If you assume that I don't mean I say what I meant, what's the point?

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Robin,

What's really bad about this idea is that you could probably, with some success, play on people's indifference to get people with whom you disagree politically to stay out of the polling booth but as soon as you say "X can't vote if they don't meet Y standard" I guarantee they will go crazy.

Is there some rule that applies to them that didn't apply to African-Americans?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Then there is no further point in communication.  If you assume that I don't mean I say what I meant, what's the point?

Is there some rule that applies to them that didn't apply to African-Americans?

What?  How about the fact that you can't guarantee your test will not limit the franchise to a minority of people.  The fact that you have people who have been accustomed to having the right to vote suddenly told they will be tested to determine if they now have the right to vote.  People tend to get up in arms when something they've taken for granted is taken from them.

Another practical question.  Would their be testing before each election to determine who may and may not vote?  If someone who qualifies one year is injured or suffers from a debilitating illness that affect cognition (like Altzheimers) should they be stripped of the right to vote in your system?

[Robin Of House Hill]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What?  How about the fact that you can't guarantee your test will not limit the franchise to a minority of people.  The fact that you have people who have been accustomed to having the right to vote suddenly told they will be tested to determine if they now have the right to vote.  People tend to get up in arms when something they've taken for granted is taken from them.

Another practical question.  Would their be testing before each election to determine who may and may not vote?  If someone who qualifies one year is injured or suffers from a debilitating illness that affect cognition (like Altzheimers) should they be stripped of the right to vote in your system?

As a practical matter, yes, the tests would have to be performed before each election.  The logistical problem would be enormous.

I'm trying to avoid your first paragraph, because while you are probably correct regarding their reaction, it raises the question in my mind, whether privileged people are due special consideration. Historically, if a non-privileged group does anything that gets them up in arms, the police arrest them once it passes a certain criteria.  Should the higher probability of their reaction really afford them extra protection?

[AverageGuy]

36 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Is there some rule that applies to them that didn't apply to African-Americans?

When you're using Jim Crow to justify your argument, you may have gone off-track.

[Rippounet]

35 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Then there is no further point in communication. 

You're probably right, but you're the one who started this topic, so you're the one who was apparently seeking some sort of communication. Not sure what you expected though tbh.

You're the one who wrote:

Quote

If that's the case, should voting require an IQ test and psych evaluation?  Otherwise, the Xenophobic, homophobic, racists who want nothing but hegemonic power will win, in perpetuity.

As well as:

Quote

That only makes sense if all Trump supporters are presumed to lack intelligence and are deranged.  Of course, if that is what you think, we may actually be in agreement.

I don't respect xenophobia, homophobia or racism, but I don't think they necessarily come from a lack of intelligence. Ignorance, prejudice, lack of education perhaps... But these don't actually relate to IQ at all. Nor are they a symptom of mental problems.

Others have said it before, but I believe you don't actually like democracy. You seem to think intolerant people are stupid and should not be allowed to vote. The irony being that with such thinking you become the very thing that you pretend to fight. From a logical perspective, as soon as you advocate the disenfranchisement of people who don't agree with you, you're effectively advocating some form of authoritarianism. Given the choice, I'd rather live in a country where the intolerant folk have a choice of winning elections than in a country where some form of arbitrary test determines who gets to vote and who doesn't. That's what democracy is supposed to be. That's what liberalism is supposed to be. What you're trying to defend... I'm not sure what it is exactly, but I see it as yet another form of fascism. In some respects, it may even be closer to genuine fascism than the neo-fascist hatred spouted by the likes of Trump and Le Pen.

I could see it all as being funny, but given what's happening in our societies, I think it's just sad. Perhaps you're not totally wrong to think the rights of immigrants and minorities are more important than democracy. But to say that people who don't think a certain way should be deprived of their rights... How is that different from depriving people of rights because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation? I'm tempted to say it's even worse. I for myself will never condone the brave new world you're advocating. I'd rather vote for Trump or Le Pen than anyone suggesting what you're suggesting.

 

[Liver and Onions]

I'd argue that, even without the moral objections to such, voting tests come too late to improve society. A better educational system that fosters the ability to think objectively and discern reality from fabrications would serve us better. And, no, sadly, I don't have any ground rules for one stashed under my hat (I'm not even wearing a hat). (I do have this sadly comical image in my head of 18 and older folks studying to pass this hypothetical voting test much like kids do these days to past standardized school tests- they don't learn anything other than how to answer some predetermined questions). Nor do I think that brainwashing kids to think one way or another is the answer. In college, I learned how to think, analyze and continue learning, not that This Person was always right or that This is How You Always Do Things. It's definitely an attempt to move forward looking through a micro-lens- improve society by giving each person the tools to contribute and better him/her/zirself in perpetuity. 

The main argument against things like fascism and authoritarianism, after the horrors that they can and have enabled, is that they do not improve life for anyone except maybe those who got to lead the revolt, and they're normally pretty privileged to begin with. They're not built to last. Revolution may have been the answer (right or wrong) in the past, but I think we can be innovative enough to find a new and better way to affect positive change. Sorry I don't have anything more concrete to add than that right now. 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I don't see any practical way to make it work, really, but I think a Basic Competency multiple choice test based on the actual candidates is kind of an interesting idea. Like for example: Which candidate wants to repeal and replace Obamacare? Which candidate wants to increase the federal minimum wage? Etc, etc. 

 So basically, if you can't show that you've been paying attention to the actual campaigns, you don't get to vote.

 That said, I realize it's an impractical idea, and at the end of the day, I don't really want to see any sort of legislation that limits participation.

[LongRider]

6 hours ago, Hereward said:

Leaving aside that it's a horrible idea in principle, if enacted, all that would happen would be that instead of fighting for the power to gerrymander  districts, you'd have a struggle for the power to write the voting test.

Write it, copyright it and................................profit!

[Jo498]

That the stupid, uneducated mob would rule or at least determine the policy to an unhealthy extent is among the oldest arguments against democracy. Usually it is framed the way that the stupid and passionate mob is most easily influenced by cunning demagogues (because this was roughly the real life experience of people like Plato who argued that way). The problem with the alternative, monarchy or some mix between aristocracy and meritocracy is that one does not only need to pick the most intelligent or capable to rule but also the most moral ones who are immune to abuse their power. Unfortunately, there seems to be no reliable method to pick out such people, so today we tend to prefer the checks and balances of representative democracy with some areas (like fundamental rights) not subject to revision and with "experts" (like supreme court judges) providing an additional layer of controls and checks. We all know that it is not perfect. Good luck to anyone who can come up with something that is better and stable.

This is not to deny that some systems of representative democracy can be more faulty and more easily be abused than others. If one does not see democratic/legal/procedural ways within the system there are obviously several possibilities: emigrate, non-violent resistance, "head for the hills" to either incite violent resistance or revolt or head for the hills/country (at least symbolically) for some kind of "internal emigration", that is, disengage as far as possible from mainstream and don't give a sh*t (one will probably not be helping anyone in distress except for the few you can take with you to your manor, but at least one might avoid trouble yourself). Any of these option might be morally justified in some situations.

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, Jo498 said:

That the stupid, uneducated mob would rule or at least determine the policy to an unhealthy extent is among the oldest arguments against democracy. Usually it is framed the way that the stupid and passionate mob is most easily influenced by cunning demagogues (because this was roughly the real life experience of people like Plato who argued that way). The problem with the alternative, monarchy or some mix between aristocracy and meritocracy is that one does not only need to pick the most intelligent or capable to rule but also the most moral ones who are immune to abuse their power. Unfortunately, there seems to be no reliable method to pick out such people, so today we tend to prefer the checks and balances of representative democracy with some areas (like fundamental rights) not subject to revision and with "experts" (like supreme court judges) providing an additional layer of controls and checks. We all know that it is not perfect. Good luck to anyone who can come up with something that is better and stable.

This is not to deny that some systems of representative democracy can be more faulty and more easily be abused than others. If one does not see democratic/legal/procedural ways within the system there are obviously several possibilities: emigrate, non-violent resistance, "head for the hills" to either incite violent resistance or revolt or head for the hills/country (at least symbolically) for some kind of "internal emigration", that is, disengage as far as possible from mainstream and don't give a sh*t (one will probably not be helping anyone in distress except for the few you can take with you to your manor, but at least one might avoid trouble yourself). Any of these option might be morally justified in some situations.

Democracy can go wrong.  But, I think it's a good deal less likely to go wrong than various brands of oligarchy, such as the one proposed in the O/P.

If nothing else, democracy enables power to be transferred peacefully between factions, rather than one or more factions resorting to violence to gain or retain power.

[Robin Of House Hill]

52 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Democracy can go wrong.  But, I think it's a good deal less likely to go wrong than various brands of oligarchy, such as the one proposed in the O/P.

If nothing else, democracy enables power to be transferred peacefully between factions, rather than one or more factions resorting to violence to gain or retain power.

I think this is the first time I've heard that requiring that people have the capacity to understand the issues they are voting on, and not be crazy, as oligarchy.

ol•i•gar•chy (ŏlˈĭ-gärˌkē, ōˈlĭ-)

n. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

n. Those making up such a government.

n. A state governed by a few persons.

Theoretically, average intelligence is an IQ of 100 (The last statistics for the US puts it at 98). So if the magic IQ numbers was set at 90, well over half the population would qualify.  Not great, but at least they'd comprehend the issues.

Now, let's look at the issue of transfer of power in a democracy.  In the US, the minority can elect the president. Rural areas have greater representation that population centers.  The judiciary is appointed on the basis of political view, rather than being fair and impartial judges. When one party has been Gerrymandering legislative districts for decades to deprive the other party of representation, tell me about that peaceful transfer of power thing, again.  People are trying to protect a democracy that no longer exists.  The right will not give up power peacefully.